Creates a BindingConnector to enforce an equal-value constraint between two properties or ports within a SysML model.
Create a BindingConnector (SysML equal-value constraint) between two properties/ports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| parent_id | Yes | ||
| source_id | Yes | ||
| target_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action without mentioning side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or any impact on existing model elements. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to identifying the action and resource, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not cover essential context such as what parent_id refers to, how the connector is placed in the model hierarchy, or what the return value contains. For a creation tool with four parameters, the description is too minimal to be considered complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds meaning for source_id and target_id by indicating they are 'properties/ports', but it does not explain parent_id or the optional name parameter. This partial clarification helps but leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create', the resource 'BindingConnector', and clarifies it as a 'SysML equal-value constraint' between two properties/ports. This distinctly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from the generic create_connector sibling, which likely handles other connector types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for binding connectors specifically, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_connector or set_connection_ends. No direct comparison or exclusion is provided, leaving selection to inference from the name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.